Pages

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

CRTC Decides the Fate of G4techTV and OWN

The CRTC recently announced that starting on December 11th they will hold a hearing on whether the reports submitted by G4techTV and OWN include enough changes so they can comply with the nature of their service.G4techTV

In Rogers Media Inc. Broadcasting Decision 2011-447 on July 27th, 2011, the Commission found that some of G4techTV’s programming was not consistent with its nature of service definition and directed the licensee to file a report by no later than March 1st detailing the measures it had taken to bring the service into compliance with its nature of service definition. In the alternative, the Commission expected the licensee to surrender its licence for the specialty Category A service G4techTV and apply for a licence to operate a specialty Category C service or to submit another appropriate proposal by the same date. Consequently, the licensee submitted to the Commission a report dated March 1st outlining the steps it had taken to address the Commission’s concerns.

In a letter sent June 18th, the Commission indicated that since a considerable amount of G4techTV’s programming remained out of compliance with its nature of service definition, it would implement enforcement measures, which could include a mandatory order hearing, if G4techTV was not in compliance by September 1st. The Commission noted that it would take into account G4techTV’s non-compliance when considering any future applications by the licensee.

The licensee filed an application for a licence amendment on August 30th under Part 1 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules) in order to re-designate G4techTV as a specialty Category B service. The licensee also requested an amendment to its nature of service definition as follows:

The licensee shall provide a national, English-language specialty Category B service consisting of programming related to technology and appeals to the interests of the digital generation including its on-line communities, culture and trends.

However, the Commission informed the licensee in a letter dated September 10th that a Part 1 licence amendment process was not appropriate for this type of application, which sought to change fundamental aspects of G4techTV’s licence. Consequently, the Commission informed the licensee that it would not treat its application under Part 1 of the Rules and that its application would be treated as an application for a new broadcasting licence to operate a specialty Category B service at a future public hearing.

In a letter dated September 28th, the licensee requested that the Commission reconsider its determination that its application to re-designate G4techTV as a specialty Category B service be treated as an application for a new licence. The licensee submitted that the Commission had the discretion to proceed with the application by means of a licence amendment. Moreover, in a separate letter also dated September 28th, the licensee requested that the Commission suspend its enforcement in regard to G4techTV’s non-compliance with its nature of service definition until a final determination has been made with respect to its application for a licence amendment.

In light of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the actions taken by the licensee are not consistent with the directives set out in Broadcasting Decision 2011-447 and its letter dated June 18th. Accordingly, it appears to the Commission that the licensee remains out of compliance with its nature of service definition. The Commission therefore intends to inquire into, hear and determine these matters at the hearing.

G4techTV launched with a license that stated they where to provide programming that would be devoted to computers, technology and the Internet, and would “increase the programming diversity available to Canadians by providing information focusing exclusively on technology that is not offered currently in the Canadian broadcasting system”.

OWN

Corus Entertainment Inc. filed an application on March 1st for a broadcasting licence to operate OWN as a specialty Category B service. Corus also proposed to discontinue the operation of OWN as a specialty Category A service. Corus’ application also included a request to add program category 7 Drama and comedy to the programming categories from which the service may draw its programming as well as a request to reduce its Canadian content requirements. Moreover, Corus specified that its application is conditional upon the Commission agreeing to exempt the Shaw-owned cable systems from section 19 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations with respect to the distribution of OWN.

In a letter dated June 22nd, the Commission indicated to Corus that it would not process an application that is conditional upon another application by a third party. Consequently, the Commission once again directed Corus to come into compliance with its nature of service definition, and this time, by no later than September 1st, or to submit by no later than July 9th a new application for a broadcasting licence to operate OWN as a specialty Category B or Category C service.

Subsequent to the granting of an extension for filing, Corus filed an application on July 23rd to amend the broadcasting licence of OWN under Part 1 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules). In its application, Corus requested to amend the nature of service definition of OWN and to re-designate it as a specialty Category B service. Corus added that since OWN’s licence was renewed until August 31st, 2016 in Broadcasting Decision 2011-446, it proposed to amend the service’s licence for the remainder of the current licence term and requested that the Commission issue a licence to OWN to operate a specialty Category B service as of September 1st, 2016.

On August 15th, the Commission sent a letter to Corus informing it that it would not treat its application under Part 1 of the Rules and that it would inform it in regard to the next steps to be taken.

In light of the foregoing, the Commission finds that neither of the applications submitted by the licensee adhere to the directives set out in Broadcasting Decision 2011-446 and its letter dated June 22nd. Consequently, it appears to the Commission that the licensee remains out of compliance with its nature of service definition. The Commission therefore intends to inquire into, hear and determine these matters at the hearing.

OWN was originally launched as Canadian Learning Television or CLT, and had a license that stated they will air formal and informal educational programming and learning opportunities that generally focus on adult education.